Misguided Misfires
Steve Chapman points out the absurdity of recent statements by the Chicago Police Superintendent, Jody Weis. In response to a spate of gun violence in Chicago, Weis is – for completely unknown reasons – calling for a ban on "assault weapons." How many of the shootings involved that type of weapon? Exactly one.
If there are too many guns in Chicago, it's not because of any statutory oversight. The city has long outlawed the sale and possession of handguns. It also forbids assault weapons. If prohibition were the answer, no one would be asking the question.
The recent spate of killings gives a misleading impression. Since the peak years of the early 1990s, the number of murders in Chicago has fallen by more than half. In the first three months of this year, homicides were down by 1.1 percent. No one would describe the current murder rate as acceptable, but the city has made huge progress.
It has done so despite the alleged problem cited by Weis, which is the availability of guns, and particularly one type of gun. "There are just too many weapons here," he declared at a Sunday news conference. "Why in the world do we allow citizens to own assault rifles?"
Actually, in Chicago "we" don't allow citizens to own assault rifles. Elsewhere they are allowed for the same reason other firearms are permitted. The gun Weis villainized is a type of semiautomatic that has a fearsome military appearance but is functionally identical to many legal sporting arms.
And its bark is worse than its bite. As of March 31, there had been 87 homicides in the city. When I asked the Chicago Police Department how many of the murders are known to have involved assault rifles, the answer came back: one.
Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country. Citizens of that state cannot get a carry permit – period. The so-called assault weapons are nothing of the sort, either. Most Americans cannot own a weapon capable of full automatic fire. Yet Weis is misdirecting on the cause of Chicago's problem. Many people have pointed out that the "assault weapon" ban passed by the Clinton administration was really nothing but an ugly gun ban. Instead of blaming ugly guns, maybe Weis could try enforcing the laws already on the books and cracking down on the criminals. Just a thought.
UPDATE: The Agenda is out on full display as Bob Owens has already noted.
By Gayle Miller, April 24, 2008 @ 9:51 am
I am of the opinion that this country is going to experience some serious upheaval in the not too distant future and the sane citizens of this country, having been pushed up to and beyond their limits of patience, are going to start insisting that the Constitution of the U.S. be respected and OBEYED. That insistence will likely need to be "reinforced" with a little firepower. It will be a very short insurrection because the good guys are the ones with the "enforcers" while the pantywaist left wingers will be yelling "it isn’t FAIR"! And we will be studiously ignoring their silly little butts!
By Denny, April 24, 2008 @ 10:58 am
But this would have prevented that one shooting right? Anyone…
By Woodsprite, April 24, 2008 @ 2:51 pm
"But this would have prevented that one shooting right? Anyone…"
No. If the shooter already had the gun, banning him from buying a new one would have no effect. If he were buying the gun for the crime, he would have either bought it illegally or used something else.
Gun bans only effect people who actually obey laws. By definition, criminals do not obey laws.
By Mockinbird, April 25, 2008 @ 2:46 pm
Thank goodness I live in Florida. Yep, plenty of guns.